Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

People always try to use this as a reason not to tank. "There is no guarantee", no ****ing ****, never said it was. I'll tell you what pretty much is a guarantee though. That trying to trade for middle of the road talent to build around middle round picks is not going to work. I did use the Cavs as an example, mostly for how they have managed to get good picks by tanking, #1 and #4 one year and #4 the next. Don't know if their gm is that good at drafting though so who knows how it will work out. But isn't that where having a gm who is good at drafting comes in handy? Use the skills you have BC.

My point about the Bobcats is that they tanked hard to get one player and ended up with another. Lottery balls FTW. Many drafts aren't as deep as last year's and a heavily tanked season that ends up with a **** lottery pick (i.e. outside of the top 3-5) is a wasted season. It happens. Yes, I agree BC should use his strong suit, and yes you've seen me say that I'm not interested in any of the middle range talent available through trade right now, but another way to look at it is that BC's drafting acumen has caused some of his mid-range draft picks to pan out better than other team's top lotto picks. I'm just not as absolute as you are on this. I actually think he's assembled a team with some potential during his rebuild/reload, though I know very well that you don't.

And there's another reason not to tank: many GMs hate the thought of it. Seriously how many teams rise to the upper echelon by tanking? I can think of two right now: Boston and San Antonio. But the distinguishing factor for both of those teams was that they already had some superlative talent to rebuild around. People always ignore the fact that it is extremely difficult for a talent-poor team to entice anyone into an exchange of talent or picks if they don't have much to send the other way. And if they acknowledge that they almost certainly ignore that GMs like to develop their own talent and not instantly flip it whether they are on good value rookie contracts or not. DD is a player I would have liked to have seen traded, not re-signed. Problem was, for what? For another bunch of lottery balls? Wouldn't BC just be accused of some other heinous managerial crime for that? lol.

My point about the Bobcats is that they tanked hard to get one player and ended up with another. Lottery balls FTW. Many drafts aren't as deep as last year's and a heavily tanked season that ends up with a **** lottery pick (i.e. outside of the top 3-5) is a wasted season. It happens. Yes, I agree BC should use his strong suit, and yes you've seen me say that I'm not interested in any of the middle range talent available through trade right now, but another way to look at it is that BC's drafting acumen has caused some of his mid-range draft picks to pan out better than other team's top lotto picks. I'm just not as absolute as you are on this. I actually think he's assembled a team with some potential during his rebuild/reload, though I know very well that you don't.

So your point about the Bobcats is that it was a failure because they got the #2 pick instead of the #1. I just can't get on board with that being a valid point. They tanked for a high pick, they got a high pick.

Once again I have no problems with who he drafts at the position they draft at. He gets good players for where they are drafted but they aren't the players you can get near the top of the draft.

Originally Posted by ink

And there's another reason not to tank: many GMs hate the thought of it. Seriously how many teams rise to the upper echelon by tanking? I can think of two right now: Boston and San Antonio. But the distinguishing factor for both of those teams was that they already had some superlative talent to rebuild around. People always ignore the fact that it is extremely difficult for a talent-poor team to entice anyone into an exchange of talent or picks if they don't have much to send the other way. And if they acknowledge that they almost certainly ignore that GMs like to develop their own talent and not instantly flip it whether they are on good value rookie contracts or not. DD is a player I would have liked to have seen traded, not re-signed. Problem was, for what? For another bunch of lottery balls? Wouldn't BC just be accused of some other heinous managerial crime for that? lol.

What gms? And how is that a reason not to tank? Miami's gm isn't against it, Boston's gm isn't against it, Chicago's gm was never against it, San Antonio's gm isn't against it, Oklahoma's gm isn't against it, Houston's gm wasn't against it to get Hakeem, hell Dallas even did it for years leading up to Nowitzki, the Clippers gm isn't against it to get Griffin. The greatest gm of all time, Auerbach, even understood the value of a high pick and would trade away assets or tank to get that high pick.

It would be nice if all teams went all out to win every year but its completely unrealistic in the NBA with the way the league is set up. A team needs top end talent to compete. Unless you are a big market destination city you have basically zero chance to aquire that talent from a trade or in free agency. Most top end talent comes in the top 5 picks. How do you get a top 5 pick? Tank or trade for it. I just don't buy it when you try to make it sound like tanking is uncommon or isn't basically the only way to get top end talent. Is it a guarantee? No, its taking a chance. But what the Raps are doing isn't even taking a chance.

So your point about the Bobcats is that it was a failure because they got the #2 pick instead of the #1. I just can't get on board with that being a valid point. They tanked for a high pick, they got a high pick.

You know very well that last year the consensus was that there was the #1 pick and then the rest. The divide between 1 and 2 has rarely been more extreme.

Tank or trade for it. I just don't buy it when you try to make it sound like tanking is uncommon or isn't basically the only way to get top end talent. Is it a guarantee? No, its taking a chance. But what the Raps are doing isn't even taking a chance.

Well, without assets, as I said, you don't trade for it. And I didn't say tanking was uncommon, I said that tanking didn't always lead to a high pick, and success through tanking wasn't that common. I don't agree that all those teams tanked their way to success; several of them lucked their way to success because that's what happens in the lottery.

In the few years since Bosh has left BC hasn't tanked hard enough for you. Tank Nation has also been disappointed. He has done it another way and it may lead to eternal mediocrity but he is also building something that looks surprisingly like a basketball culture. You may completely dismiss that but what I see is pretty impressive lately. Do we have any high end talent? Nope, not really. He pulled off a steal at 5 a few years ago to get JV when we finished LOWER but lost a few places in the lottery, remember? Good save by BC I'd say to come up with a prospect like JVal despite having the bad luck to drop a few lottery spots. Remember what C Mund said about luck? Well it happens, and despite that, BC grabbed a great pick. And last year, picking up Ross was not so bad at all as it turns out. I like his potential and think we will see big things from him, though I expect you don't. Could he have tanked harder?

Well, that's the trade-off he made when he hired Casey, someone else who you have more or less dismissed, but who has instilled a very competitive culture into this team. So, here was BCs situation: grab Casey while he was available, don't miss THAT opportunity, but know that he's a competitive character and won't lose intentionally. You wanted BC to trade away talent at that point. Many felt that he didn't need to because his team sucked so badly the year before. Casey surprisingly turned THAT team around and it cost us a few lottery balls. We were still in the lottery but our chances of picking up the #1 were greatly reduced. Again, everyone wanted the first pick because everyone (including you, if I remember a certain thread about ditching Bargnani in favour of Anthony Davis) felt that there was only one sure fire player, and then there was another tier altogether. So in a deep draft year maybe the risk wasn't that great in not tanking. I just don't see it as so straightforward and I don't make any apologies about it.

We've talked this one through a few times before. Maybe we should let this return to a trade ideas thread. I was just joining in on a discussion based on a few points I saw from C Mund which I wouldn't have dismissed as quickly as you did.

You know very well that last year the consensus was that there was the #1 pick and then the rest. The divide between 1 and 2 has rarely been more extreme.

I agree that there was a consensus 1st pick but don't agree that the divide was that big.

Originally Posted by ink

Well, without assets, as I said, you don't trade for it. And I didn't say tanking was uncommon, I said that tanking didn't always lead to a high pick, and success through tanking wasn't that common. I don't agree that all those teams tanked their way to success; several of them lucked their way to success because that's what happens in the lottery.

In the few years since Bosh has left BC hasn't tanked hard enough for you. Tank Nation has also been disappointed. He has done it another way and it may lead to eternal mediocrity but he is also building something that looks surprisingly like a basketball culture. You may completely dismiss that but what I see is pretty impressive lately. Do we have any high end talent? Nope, not really. He pulled off a steal at 5 a few years ago to get JV when we finished LOWER but lost a few places in the lottery, remember? Good save by BC I'd say to come up with a prospect like JVal despite having the bad luck to drop a few lottery spots. Remember what C Mund said about luck? Well it happens, and despite that, BC grabbed a great pick. And last year, picking up Ross was not so bad at all as it turns out. I like his potential and think we will see big things from him, though I expect you don't. Could he have tanked harder?

Well, that's the trade-off he made when he hired Casey, someone else who you have more or less dismissed, but who has instilled a very competitive culture into this team. So, here was BCs situation: grab Casey while he was available, don't miss THAT opportunity, but know that he's a competitive character and won't lose intentionally. You wanted BC to trade away talent at that point. Many felt that he didn't need to because his team sucked so badly the year before. Casey surprisingly turned THAT team around and it cost us a few lottery balls. We were still in the lottery but our chances of picking up the #1 were greatly reduced. Again, everyone wanted the first pick because everyone (including you, if I remember a certain thread about ditching Bargnani in favour of Anthony Davis) felt that there was only one sure fire player, and then there was another tier altogether. So in a deep draft year maybe the risk wasn't that great in not tanking. I just don't see it as so straightforward and I don't make any apologies about it.

We've talked this one through a few times before. Maybe we should let this return to a trade ideas thread. I was just joining in on a discussion based on a few points I saw from C Mund which I wouldn't have dismissed as quickly as you did.

Why is it that any person who disagrees with you obviously isn't taking everything into account and dismissed things?

If you think not agreeing with C Mund that everything is basically luck and that there is no planning to it at all is dismissing his points then fine. I feel it was just agreeing to disagree and ending a conversation that was going nowhere which is exactly what I am going to do with this conversation right now. I'll be more then happy to continue a conversation when you stop making things about about my points here and claiming opinions for me that I have never made.

I can't. We can amnesty Bargs in the summer. Then we would be paying DeMar almost half of what Gay would get paid.

We could do that but I can't see BC cutting a cheque that big and letting him walk for nothing with a pocket full of our $$$ and then sign somewhere else for next to squat. If Bargs leaves it will be through a trade and BC will try to salvage as much as he can for him and whatever is left of his manhood. I wouldn't be surprised to see BC trade Bargs,AA,Lowry,Pietrus,Linas or Fields at the deadline. Out of those guys Linas might survive the deadline just because of the JVal factor and him helping JVal get used to the NBA culture.

Why is it that any person who disagrees with you obviously isn't taking everything into account and dismissed things?

If you think not agreeing with C Mund that everything is basically luck and that there is no planning to it at all is dismissing his points then fine. I feel it was just agreeing to disagree and ending a conversation that was going nowhere which is exactly what I am going to do with this conversation right now. I'll be more then happy to continue a conversation when you stop making things about about my points here and claiming opinions for me that I have never made.

I don't think I'm claiming anything I haven't gotten from your posts. You don't seem to like the talent, the coach, or the GM at present. If I'm wrong, my apologies. The post to C Mund seemed dismissive. It's just the way it gets in here with many posters including you and me when we don't agree with something. I think it's a general fan problem, not taking everything into account, and exaggerating our points for emphasis. It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong. And it's all good from here at least, I'm fine to move on.

You know very well that last year the consensus was that there was the #1 pick and then the rest. The divide between 1 and 2 has rarely been more extreme.

i think you are splitting hairs here big time. whether the draft is considered "poor" or "stacked", the number 2 pick is still expected to yield a high impact player in just about any year. being able to draft Kidd-Gilchrist is still a major score even if they would have liked a shot at Davis.

Originally Posted by nycericanguy

well unfortunately it looks like you were right about Bargs...

but hopefully we can use his expiring, if not at least we unloaded Novak's deal...

I don't think I'm claiming anything I haven't gotten from your posts. You don't seem to like the talent, the coach, or the GM at present. If I'm wrong, my apologies. The post to C Mund seemed dismissive. It's just the way it gets in here with many posters including you and me when we don't agree with something. I think it's a general fan problem, not taking everything into account, and exaggerating our points for emphasis. It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong. And it's all good from here at least, I'm fine to move on.

What do I say that suggests I dislike the players?

What do I say that suggests I dislike or dismiss the coach?

When have I ever said that tanking is a sure thing to produce a contender? You bring this up bacially every post when we talk about this subject even though I never say it is a guarantee.

When did I ever say it had to be Davis in last years draft? If anything I barely discussed him and talked more about the wing players.

You make these claims that are beyond embellished and then just continue on with them as if I actually said it even if I point out thats not my opinion. It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong but you seem to spend a lot more time trying to make me look wrong rather then dicussing what my actual point is.

When have I ever said that tanking is a sure thing to produce a contender? You bring this up bacially every post when we talk about this subject even though I never say it is a guarantee.

When did I ever say it had to be Davis in last years draft? If anything I barely discussed him and talked more about the wing players.

You make these claims that are beyond embellished and then just continue on with them as if I actually said it even if I point out thats not my opinion. It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong but you seem to spend a lot more time trying to make me look wrong rather then dicussing what my actual point is.

I could say the same thing since I don't think you're responding to what I actually say either. Depends which side of the discussion you're on right? And yes, I find your comments about the team to usually be disparaging. Out of curiosity, what do you like about the team since you are upset that I suggested you don't like much?

Your post left me scratching my head because you've reworded several of the things I've said and you've done it a couple of times in this exchange. I end up defending what I didn't even write. But to answer, you have said most of the current players are role players (suggesting they have no upside), you've said that Casey is a good defensive coach but suggested he's not a good head coach because he lacks offensive knowledge, there was an extended discussion before last year's draft about picking Davis and dumping Bargnani where you indicated that he was the obvious #1 and we would definitely dump Bargnani if he was selected, and I never said that you said that tanking was a guarantee. I simply pointed that out (in keeping with C Mund's fair comment) and you mocked what I said with your "no ****ing ****" comment. Let's move on.

i think you are splitting hairs here big time. whether the draft is considered "poor" or "stacked", the number 2 pick is still expected to yield a high impact player in just about any year. being able to draft Kidd-Gilchrist is still a major score even if they would have liked a shot at Davis.

The consensus leading up to the draft was that there was Davis and then the rest of the field. No one said Kidd-Gilchrist wasn't good. Small sampling of many similar articles ...

Davis distances himself from field in race to be No. 1 pick

If Anthony Davis is going to beat people with offense, the race for the No. 1 pick in the NBA Draft has officially become a rout.

The NBA lottery has had a few locks at the top of the draft as recently as John Wall in 2010 (Washington) and Blake Griffin in 2009 (Los Angeles Clippers). But the 2012 draft is much more akin to 2003 and 2002, when the announcement of the top pick going to Cleveland and Houston meant LeBron James and Yao Ming knew then they would be going to those respective teams.

Davis said he's unfazed by the incredible hype that has him being compared to the likes of Boston's Kevin Garnett and San Antonio's Tim Duncan by league executives who aren't typically prone to hyperbole.